Peter F

being called a Mossad agent isnt a bad thing. Being called a thief is. Seems that on the face of it the slander of 'Thief' is what set him off. On the other hand I would be insulted by someone saying I'm a spy for a foreign country. Thats pretty slanderous too.

Doesn't sound like justice at all. Those soldiers should be getting 250k at least. Its entirely unjust that the government not pay what the soldiers deserve.

The soldiers aren't being compensated because of Omar Khadr?

We need to find the most Ironic and Sarcastic taxes and use them

of all the other countries with the wherewithall and reason to wage war against Canada the USofA is at the top of the list. In which case NATO will be nowhere to be found.

The Moonbox argument is Who effing cares about the relationship between Albertans and any party? Alberta's irrelevant. Any party that sets that coldly practical standard is shooting itself in the foot and is therefore illogical. In fact I would say that it merely dresses itself up in the cloth of pragmatism to hide the true spite motivating it.

Oh yes, as I have said before, I get that. What you dont seem to get is this: if 75 Quebec ridings are irrelevant then 28 Alberta ridings are also irrelevant since those ridings are not necessary to form a government. Same applies to every other province in the country. Thus all provinces are irrelevant thus making the Moonbox argument meaningless. The very same irrelevant argument was used by the Liberals - Alberta is irrelevant. According to you that is an intelligent thought process by a Federal Political party. Actually good for the country. My point being that such a thought process by any political party in this grand land is completely Stoopid and you fools embrace it!

Me? Ha! It is you that equates any Quebec interest with extortion - not I. Never have never will.

That is correct. No fault whatsoever. Citizens of Quebec get one vote each. Voters in Quebec are as relevant as any body else in this country. So the 'irrelevant' argument is mere sour grapes cause they vote for someone you dont approve of. Under your 'irrelevant' argument all other voters are also irrelevant. There is absolutely no rational argument to say some voters are relevant and some are not.

Oh for goodness sake...Look if you guys have no interest in pandering to Quebec or seeking any support from Quebec thats fine. Do so - or more accurately - don't do so. But lets save the crap about it being Quebecs fault. Take responsibility for your position. Its very simple: you have no need to get Quebec on board the party program. Quebec is not needed. Quebec is irrelevant to the party. Therefore YOU choose to ignore Quebecs interests. ....then blame Quebec for your decisions?

Allright. I understand the position. The conservatives have no need to pander to Quebec since they can form a government without a Quebec mp. Fair enough statement of fact. Moonbox says Quebec caused this irrelevancy itself, apparently by not voting conservative. Also a fair enough statement of fact. It is also true however that the conservatives are irrelevant to Quebec and that the conservatives brought this on themselves. That is also a statement of fact.

So Quebec is in fact relevant - but only to the NDP. It is not now nor can ever be relevant to the Conservatives. Correct?

So, how then does Quebec become relevant?

Yeah I understand. Quebec didn't support the conservatives therefore they are irrelevant to the current government. I get that. but you dont seem to understand that that particular circumstance is completely normal for anyone anywhere. BC voters are subject to irrelevancy also as are every other voter in the country. You are suggesting that 'relevancy' is bestowed upon voters that choose correctly. Should the enough voters vote NDP in the next election and the NDP form a government - would Quebec then through thier own fault be relevant or irrelevant? Would Alberta and Saskatchewan then be irrelevant? would such irrelevancy be the fault of Alberta and Saskatchewan? Would Conservative supporters be irrelevant? or any other supporters of any other party?

What is the point? From what I gather the point is that if people dont vote for the party that wins the election then those people are irrelevant. I think that point is absolute bunk. Quebecers went over to the NDP - not the conservatives - and were shut out of government and are somehow not irrelevant. Someones going to have to explain why voting for the protest parties is irrelevant and voting for the mainstream is relevant

Oh! Now I finally understand why 9/11 truthers would eventually get into Luciferians and NWO and Illimintati and bilderbergers. They were channelling the complete Alex jones .

I have. Mine. Worked out nice and easily with no muss no fuss. But then we behaved like responsible adults. But then the rhetoric of the divorce metaphor assumes an abusive relationship: If you leave I will make sure you do not get a dime! Forget the kids too! and you're outta the house too! If you leave you will get nothing Bitch! So stay and love me! But it does work...for while. I am reminded of Leveque's response to the reporter who pronounced the 'you will get nothing!' tirade. Canada will allow the parting, he said, because "Canadians are a civilized people". and after all the reform party could never form the government by assuming that very position!

But Quebec voters were irrelevant. They voted enmasse for the NDP. Certainly rejecting the Cons and Libs and BQ too. Are you suggesting that perhaps if the BQ wasnt so Quebec-centric the voters of Ontario or Alberta would vote enmasse for the new moderate BQ? Your argument is contradictory. On one hand you say that Quebec should become less concerned about themselves so that Quebec will be more relevant to Canada. Then you point out that it really doesnt matter what Quebec does for Quebec is not necessary for a majority or a minority - Quebec is irrelevant.

It seems they are irrelevant right now - already. TROC cares not what Quebec wants (for whatever reasons please them). So, you see the answer to thier irrelevancy is to elect liberals/Conservatives thus becoming relevant again. Then they can get the stuff they want! Kind of circular argument isnt it? Become relevant by voting conservative then become irrelevant by getting what they want. Edit to add: Also there is the third option: vote BQ/PQ etc and either achieve Soveriegnty or have the ROC parties pander to them. That works too.

Yeah yeah. Its the unions fault that government is cutting services. If union pay/benefits was 50 percent less then government would employ 50% more right? just like in the real world.

Folks die in new ones too

I dont know about Dre, but I would and in fact am waiting to come up with enough money to purchase eyeglasses. Mind I am still using my old ones in the meantime. Back to the point: There is no immediate threat that needs responding to. CF18's bombed quite nicely in Libya, or so I'm told. Whats the damn rush?

Friend was off for 6 months due to having heart surgury. All on paid sick leave. Lets see.... thats 24 weeks x 40 hrs/week = 860 hrs 860 hrs divided by 144hrs = This guy accounted the sick leave used by 6 employees who actually never used sick leave at all! Greedy Bugger.

And what were the reasonable pay cuts Treasury Board asked for ? I'll answer it for you: None. You are creating a fiction to justify the job cuts where there is no need to do so. The government has plainly said the cuts are to cut back on government spending. They have not made up a bunch of bullshit about asking for wage cuts but the union refusing them. In fact Treasury Board has signed a whole wack of contracts with unions and not a single wage cut in the lot nor any demand for a wage cut nor any refusals to sign because of wage cuts. Your entire story is a fiction with no basis in reality.

You mean the government would gladly employ more employees than are necessary?